…why don’t people get addicted to it? Think about it. I am not saying I’m in favor of people smoking. But concerning the alleged risks of second-hand smoke (alleged by articles like this [just to use one at random] to be just as bad as smoking), I think it is odd people aren’t becoming addicted to it left and right. And as you can see in the article I cited at random, nicotine (the addictive substance in cigarettes) is just as common in the second-hand smoke.
So what have I overlooked here? 
The additctive agent (nicotene) may not be present in significant quantities in second hand smoke, but the carcinogenic agent(s) may be.
Hit submit accidentially soon…
And I didn’t see in the article where it said both nicotene and the carcinogens were both present in second hand smoke. Can you point it out?
[Emphasis mine.]
I assume they mean children are inhaling second-hand smoke, and not smoking themselves .
Saying that second hand smoke is just as dangerous as first hand smoke, is ludicrous at best. It’s the zero-tolerance craze. Pollutants are unacceptable, no matter how miniscule their concentracion.
I don’t really trust any of the studies on the effects of smoking. Half of them are conducted by the tobacco companies themselves. The other half are conducted by anti-smoking fanatics. If you have non partisan studies, they are welcome.
Okay…this is GD’s and I’m gonna just give my opinion on this matter bexause there really isn’t any positive proof AFAIK.
I’ve never smoked cigarettes. I have on very rare occasions had one just for the hell of it. The nicotene in cigarette smoke fucks me up big time. My head start spinning and I get lightheaded. I don’t enjoy smoking cigarettes. I have dipped and chewed and do occasionally smoke cigars. When I drink I smoke. That’s it.
But the nicotine levels in cigarette tobacco…especially Marlboro’s is especially high.
Now, my point is this. I can’t stand to smoke one because of the effect it has on me. BUT I can be sitting in a bar or between people who are smoking cigarettes and the 2nd hand smoke DOES NOT do this to me. It will cause my eyes to burn and might make me cough sometimes but the nicotine isn’t there. At least not like when I inhale it directly from the cig.
Now this might contradict whatever studies you want to cite but it’s the facts, at least in my own experience. The CO1 and whatever other carcinogens are in the second hand smoke that cause my eyes to water…sure that might be the lethal shit floating around the room BUT it ain’t the nicotine.
and as always, YMMV
Could it also be the case that people who are regularly exposed to second-hand smoke may develop a slight craving but without having the habit itself, they do not associate that craving with smoking a cigarette and so do not instinctively know how to satisfy it - and thus dismiss it.
I agree that the article linked in the OP sounds pretty alarmist and some of its claims sound dubious, but I think the OP may have misread the key sentence:
That sounds to me like a perfectly true statement of fact. That is, AFAIK, the same ingredients are present in cigarette smoke whether it’s deliberately inhaled directly from the cigarette by the smoker or inadvertently breathed by a non-smoker sitting nearby. So yes, second-hand smoke presumably is “just as deadly” as the “first-hand” kind.
What that sentence leaves out, though, is the fact that non-smokers are breathing much less of that deadly smoke than smokers are (at least, I think you’d pretty much have to be cheek to cheek with several smokers for quite a while to get as much smoke directly into your lungs as the average smoker does off one cigarette).
That is why, although “second-hand smoke is just as deadly”, the average non-smoker’s exposure to second-hand smoke is, in fact, nowhere near as deadly as habitual smoking. The non-smokers just don’t absorb enough of it to get the same adverse health impact. (As the article points out, the impact is greater on infants and children, though, so smokers really should refrain from lighting up around the young’uns.)
Deadly or not, second-hand smoke sure is an irritation and a nuisance, and I have wished for a long time that some clever inventor would come up with some kind of “smoke helmet” or “personal air cleaner” to enable smokers to keep their fumes to themselves. As far as I’m concerned they could smoke anywhere they damn pleased, as long as I didn’t have to breathe any of it.
That’s a very unlcear paragraph and does not support the statement you made in the OP. In fact, the whole article has a very pop-science feel to it. I suggest doing some research on primary sources before coming to any conclusions.
I’m thinking, I’m thinking! It still doesn’t make any damn sense! You seem to imply that something bad for you is inherently addictive. Has this been demonstrated conclusively?
No, he is not implying that at all. As I see it, he was saying that if smoking first hand is so addicting and horrible, and if second hand smoking is perceived just as dangerous, as claimed by the second hand nuts, that it should have the same level of addictiveness.
He’s basically trying to debunk how dangerous second hand smoking is.
Carry on.
When a person smokes, they fill their lungs with smoke.
Mass of smoke = A
Volume of lungs = X
Then Let Density of smoke in Lungs = A/X
When exhaled, the smoke fills a section of a room.
Volume Of Room Section = Y
Then let Density of smoke in room section = A/Y
But if Y>X , and A is constant, then A/Y < A/X
So, if you breathe in a small portion of A/Y, how can it possibly be as dangerous as the smoke at denist A/X? 
So, second hand smoke cannot be as dangerous as smoking.
Does anyone claim that second hand smoke is as dangerous as the first hand kind?
The OP is trying to argue that lack of addiction to second hand smoke is indicative that it’s not dangerous. That argument is a non sequitur.
Some people have claimed that first hand smoke is NOT as dangerous as second hand… because it’s drawn in through the filter. :rolleyes:
Heh. I’ve smoked for the hell of it too, about four times, but I’ve never felt any effects from nicotine. Either I was getting duds, or I’m missing some kind of smoking gene.
This is one painfully obvious thing that I have never heard anyone mention when someone claims that secondhand smoke puts others in as much danger as the smoker.
The smoker gets second-hand smoke too as well as first-hand smoke.
By Joe Jackson of all people. He covers 2[sup]nd[/sup] hand smoke in (2).
Second hand smoke is an annoyance, but I don’t believe it has ever been proven to be a cause the sole cause of lung cancer, despite the wonderful, gruesome ads they show on television.
And despite popular opinion, many people have died of lung cancer who have never smoked, or been around people who smoked.
How lethal is the smoke coming from fireplaces? How comes nobody is worried about children living in a house where a fireplace is used, probably inhalating deadly carcinogenics? How dangerous second hand smoke is compared to car exhausts (that certainly could be reduced by limiting unecessary car use) in cities?